APHC010567732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1173/2025 Between: 1.APPIKONDA RAMSH KUMAR, S/O APPIKONDA VEERA VENKATA SATYANARYANA, RESIDENT OF DHARAPALEM POST, RAMBILLI MANDALAM, BHOGAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMRAVATI. 2.BADUGU VENKATA RAMUDU, S/O LATE BADUGU VENKATESU RESIDENT OF D. NO. 27/265, VASANTHAPETA, PRODDATUR TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M V V R SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2.MULLA SOHAIL SHAREEF The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Revision cases were filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) feeling aggrieved by the docket order dated 08.01.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.128 of 2024 in C.C.No.487 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. The learned Trial Court vide docket order dated 08.01.2025 directed the Petitioner/Accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount for recalling of the warrant. Respondent No.2 filed the complaint under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity ‘the N.I.Act’) for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, covered by three cheques, Rs.10,00,000/- each. 4. The Accused/Petitioner was continuously absent for the last seven months. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was constrained to issue NBW. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court intended to recall the warrant but directed the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount by invoking Section 143-A of ‘the N.I.Act.’ 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submit that such amount is exorbitant, the financial condition of the Petitioner is deplorable and urged to scale down the percentage. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that the percentage may be scaled down to 15%. 3 6. Petitioner is a businessman, Respondent No.2 is also a businessman. There was alleged business transaction in between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of a condition to pay 20% of the cheque amount appears on a higher side. If it is reduced to 10%, interest of both sides would be protected. 8. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition to pay 20% of the cheque amount is reduced to 10%. Petitioner is directed to deposit 10% of the cheque amount within a period of two weeks from today. On such deposit, the amount shall be kept with the learned Trial Court till the judgment is pronounced. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 04.12.2025 Note: Issue C.C. by today B/o VTS